I think that what the whole of the concern boils down to is humans being replaced by technological beings that can do everything better. The truth is, that is extremely likely in a high tech society.
What this probably means is, it's not about machines doing everyone's jobs. It seems like more of a competition between humans and machines situation. It also seems like a combination of humans and machines situation. It also seems like an integration of humans and machines situation.
Where novelty is an input to the system, variation often results. There is precedent in every previous revolution. This means that there isn't likely to be just one outcome either. Bifurcation seems inevitable.
Another interesting product of technological advancement is that humans are now 7.5 billion strong. Economics is no longer about closed systems. Stewardship is now imposed upon us; as we are now capable of significant influence on the environment; which sustains us all. This would suggest that economists learn a new term from the hard sciences: Homeostasis. Politics and finance aside, it would be a good idea not to simultaneously fill the atmosphere with unbreathable greenhouse gasses and systematically destroy the natural systems that mitigate atmospheric carbon. Economics needs to be based on hard science; and General Systems Theory is the perfect candidate. I'm almost certain that it will play a large role in economic systems in the coming decades; out of self-preservation alone.
Sustainable economy / sustainable business development has been talked about in business terms at various times. If you had met with those terms and the concepts attached to them, do you think those terms can come to mean homeostasis in the sense you mention, or do you think that a new trending term may be necessary to attach attention to the subject?
To me (a personal observation), it seems that too few trends have been attracting too much attention (in economy/politics) for the past 10-20 years, letting many important discourse subjects dissipate in thin air. Whenever a trending topic arises to the rim of political discourse, politicians run at it like birds fighting over a piece of bread.
Trendsetters may be good at setting particular trends aligned to their personal inclinations, but they are not particularly good at picking specific trends actually beneficial to advancing humanity. Just too many people too interested in building their own personal monuments over each trending subject to allow an objective (de-personalized) scientific approach to economy to take hold. I somehow worry (exactly as you said, I worry regarding the oncoming change seeming too chaotic) that homeostasis will not be sufficiently trendy to become a matter of discussion.
I am having an uncanny feeling that we are still assuming the role of politicians and parties will not change, but won't they, just as economies and business models do? Perhaps also the roles of governing bodies and authorities. The society is almost certain to become redefined by technological advancement - although it seems to have been unreasonably resistant so far, probably due to risk aversion. Unless we can solve the identification / identity problem inherent to every participant in the coming change (Theseus's paradox / Grandfather's axe - when have I as a person changed enough in my function and emotion to no longer be that same person, and should I even care if I did), I think we will all be in for a very rough ride.
The term sustainable is more in reference to the end of the crisis cycle. Homeostasis is more akin to non-destructive. That is the weight that it carries. Normative function is about cooperation or at least novel, non-destructive interaction. That is in essence what is meant by "fit".
For instance, the amount of herbicide and pesticide used in food production has a limit. Now that we are approaching that limit, there is a push to shut down the only administration that is enforcing it.
The problem is with resistance. Over time the weeds and insects become resistant to the chemicals. This is addressed by using more of the patented chemicals. This makes the $tockholder$ happy. The reason that this isn't sustainable is because it will end when large numbers of people get sick. The new administration lies and says that the EPA is a waste of taxpayer dollars and people believe it. This is because people believe what the see in front of them. It's judged as observation rather than considered perception. People naturally behave adequately to their perception; so the situation is manipulated by presenting a false perception. When people start getting sick, the perception will become observation.
The other end of food production woes is in meat production. The major cause of deforestation is cattle grazing. It used to be due to slashing and burning and then growing GMO soy; but now it's slashing and burning for grazing lands. This isn't sustainable because the forest required for mitigation of atmospheric carbon. When NASA bugs out of the cape and Houston (because it's below sea level), and many loose their homes and businesses to rising sea levels, natural disasters and such, the "incentive" will be obvious.
Fundamental change in food production is a foregone conclusion. Homeostasis is as much about survival as it is about anything else. The concern is where the line will be drawn; and how much suffering will result before the change takes place. This could be really bad as arguments over false perceptions can delay it to critical points.
I'm reminded of Stephen Pinker's "The Better Angels of Our Nature". I think it's important to keep the discourse in context. Of course things are getting better (what ever that means) by nature alone; but it's not our nature that is bringing it about. It's more like the argument that was offered to Klaatu (The Day The Earth Stood Still) so that he might spare humanity. "But it is only on the brink that people find the will to change", "Only at the precipice do we evolve". We are products of our environment. That is natural selection in a nutshell.
It's always been a rough ride, full of close calls. So yeah, I agree.
Take and automate everything possible, then tax those jobs lost on the profit the company makes from it. Say for instance if a company gains 10 per hr on automation from the days of having a meat bag employee tax them 6 dollars of that profit. Now give everyone free healthcare and education (which is idiotic that we don't have already) Next step is eliminate every public assistance program out there from ssi/ssd to food stamps and everything in between. Take and cut our military down by at very least 1/3 (there's enough money to fund most of ubi by its self) and add it to the mix. Now take the taxes, the money that was spent on public assistance and put it all in a pool. Use this pool to give everyone over the age of 13 UBI (universal basic income). Why 13 you ask, good question. This way people would have to give a bit of thought to a family and how for the first 13 years they would have a lower amount of money to use to take care of their family. Now we have time to go to school, enjoy, life, get a job (there would still be jobs just fewer and most would require a great amount of education) or just be a bum the choice would be yours and you would no longer be a slave to the all mighty dollar.
It seems that most don't understand that tech unemployment is a term that is being memed as a political talking point and not so much a description of the issue at hand. Unemployment is a political term. What the real issue is, is are machines going to be making humans obsolete? Almost all of the experts say that AI is likely to be much more adept than humans at everything. Of course where politics doesn't spin this for the sake of control measures, it's just going to deny it... like climate change, immigration policies that financially exploit the undocumented, military actions based on aggression for which there isn't a shred of evidence, the Russian hacking scandal, the NSA spying scandal etc. etc.. How can anyone sort the data from the subterfuge? It just allows everyone to believe what ever they want.
Regarding the Dark Matter workaround:
It's interesting of course; but epistemically we are at a disadvantage. We can't make direct observations by our current technologies. The only evidence for dark matter is the lensing effect. That isn't something that we could use to discern if dark matter is in our proximity for the purpose of direct observation; as we couldn't see the effect if it was near us.
In metrology, there has been unexplained flux in constants such as the gravity standard (big G) and the speed of light; but this means nothing without an explanation of how it occurred.
We have a lot of serious issues in physics. Dark matter is one of many. We're still trying to explain gravity and define what up and down are. We have yet to unify quantum and classical mechanics; and there are still many observations that defy our physical models in several disciplines. It seems pretty obvious that the issue is rooted in both our epistemology and our inability to collect the required evidence. We appear to have still have quite a way to go before we have a basic understanding of the physics of our universe.
People have been wanting Dark Matter to go away since the measurements were taken. I'm not at all surprised that a workaround model is coming to be. "We find what we are looking for".
Wendell sits on the left, his audio is on the right. Twendell sits on the right, his audio is on the left. Please swap the audio tracks or flip the image. This little detail is quite annoying.
First of all, RCMP officers do not prance around on horses in 19th century uniforms all the time. They are the federal police of a G8 country, with modern equipment and resources, which of course they're going to use.
Second, the RCMP, "highest possible moral ground"? Really? Canada is a post-colonial country with a history of racial tensions and cultural genocide. Of course the feds are going to take state security seriously, especially when it comes to keeping tabs on dissidence. Stop putting our country on a stupid pedestal.
The medias are baised in the way that will get them the most viewership. Most of the time, that means not showing the entirety of the crowd. Because people tend to dislike nuance, it makes reality seem "too complex".
If the declared goal behind the action isn't something that the authorities like, it will end up with police forces fucking you up regardless, and/or people fucking with police in retaliation. So some people fuck with police as a "preemptive" measure, however efficient that may or may not be, the outcome generally doesn't change all that much.
The law enforcement budgets are also justified by use, and too many people have an itch to use those tools when they have it in their hands, regardless of what happens.
They could, but non-stupid people could block the internet connection for the Door-App, making it non-trackable again It's not as profitable Then again, non-stupid people probably wouldn't buy it in the first place ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
It's not as profitable 
Then again, non-stupid people probably wouldn't buy it in the first place ¯\_(ツ)_/¯